1. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-These are two petitions seeking review of this Court's judgment, dated 12th August, 1987, in CA. 90 of 1987. As common arguments were addressed at the Bar, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The point on which these review petitions were admitted was that as the power of the Special Court in regard to execution of decrees passed by it is provided in section 8(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the procedure provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, was displaced as held by this Court in the judgment under review. In the premises, it was contended that the reservation of the power by the Court of confirmation of "auction" as distinguished from confirmation of "sale" vide order, dated 14th September, 1985, and condition No.9 of the terms and conditions of the auction, both of which were within the amplitude of the power possessed by the Court under section 8(3) of the Ordinance were ignored or not given due effect to, in holding that the sale was to be governed throughout by the provisions of CPC overriding these express reservations.
3. We have heard Mr. S.M. Zafar, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners and M/s. Shahid Hussain and Rana Abdul Rahim, Advocates for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the condition No.9 of the terms and conditions of auction which was: "The auction shall be subject to confirmation by this Court:"
5. He then invited our attention to the order of the executing Court, dated 14th September, 1985, on the stay application submitted by the judgment-debtor which reads as follows:-- "Since there is no concluded compromise the auction may go on. However, auction may not be confirmed in the meanwhile. Notice to the Bank for a date in the first week of October, 1985. Let this order be telegraphically conveyed to the auctioneer at the expense of the petitioners today."
6. The argument of the learned counsel was that the aforesaid condition No.9 and the direction that the auction may not be confirmed for the time being were deviations from the ordinary procedure provided for in the C.P.C. For conduct of auction sale in execution of a decree. He highlighted the difference between the "confirmation of auction" as contemplated in condition No.9 and the "confirmation of sale" as contemplated by Order XXI, rule 92 C.P.C. The argument was that by the special mode prescribed by the Court itself in the exercise of power under section 8(3), the auction was first to be confirmed by the Court and until then no third party interest was to intervene even if the bid of the highest bidder was accepted by the auctioneer. The confirmation of a sale was to take effect after the confirmation of auction. Since the Court had not yet confirmed the auction, the parties to the execution application were free to settle their dispute notwithstanding the auction having taken place.
7. As argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no distinction between the words "auction" and "sale" in the context of mode of execution. Indeed auction is one of the modes of sale of property and the two terms are; in the context of execution proceedings interchangeable.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the dictionary meaning of the word "auction".
9. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word "auction" means "public sale in which articles are sold to maker of highest bid". In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the meaning of the word has been described as under: "An auction is a public sale of property to the highest bidder by one licensed and authorised for that purpose------------."
10. It is, therefore, clear that auction only means a public sale as distinguished from sale by private negotiation.
11. I am, therefore, unable to see the distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel from the use of the word "auction". What was meant was that the sale would be subject to confirmation by the Court as is done in regard to sale under the C.P.C. As to the order, dated 14th September, 1985, it may be pointed out that on the face of the order the Court was not inclined to stay the sale by public auction of the property attached which is clear from the first sentence of the order. The confirmation of the sale or auction was already reserved by the Court and therefore a direction given in the order, dated 14th September, 1985, did not take the matter on a higher footing nor was the information conveyed to the auctioneer to that effect, was of any material consequence. By the terms and conditions of the auction the bidders would have been otherwise aware that the auction sale was subject to confirmation. Both the facts relied upon by the learned counsel, therefore, do not alter the essential decision in the judgment under review. In fact the judgment has exhaustively dealt with the argument that has now been advanced in support of the review petitions. Reference may be made in this connection to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the judgment. It may be noted that the assumption which lies at the foundation of the contention now raised, that the case was decided on the basis of provisions of the C.P.C., is not well--founded. The question of confirmation of sale has been examined in the judgment in a much wider perspective including the general principles attracted in case of judicial sales.
12. In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the view that these review petitions have no merit and would accordingly dismiss the same with costs.